Another judge takes issue with Trump’s second travel ban for the wrong reasons. So it turns out that study about how “racist” voter ID laws are is complete bunk. When it comes to Trump’s tax returns, Democrats are awfully deceptive. Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” —Thomas Jefferson (1825)

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSISBanning the Travel Ban, Redux1

By Allyne Caan

Just one day before President Donald Trump’s revised immigration executive order was slated to take effect, a federal judge in Hawaii has blocked it. Surprise!

In a 43-page order2, Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a preliminary injunction against the order, claiming the challenge against it had a “likelihood of success” based on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. To his credit, at least Judge Watson cited the Constitution, even if incorrectly — especially since the state of Hawaii, as one of the plaintiffs in the case, argued against the order based on the impact it would have on the state’s university system and tourism industry. Because nothing is more important than national security except, well, lots of happy tourists from the six countries on Trump’s ban list.

Instead, Judge Watson bought the Establishment Clause argument of plaintiff Dr. Ismail Elshikh, which basically says he feels the executive order is a condemnation by the government of his Muslim religion that would make him and his family feel like second class citizens. Watson agreed, writing that “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

Clearly, Watson is more concerned with a couple of Trump’s statements on the campaign trail than the actual law at hand.

More to the point, has anyone told the good doctor and judge that jihadi terrorists are Muslim3? Or that the six nations on the ban list are pretty much the most dangerous and least vetted places in the world?

Although Watson concedes this order “does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion” and that the government defends it “principally because of its religious neutral text” in that it applies to individuals of all religions in six countries linked to terrorism, yet he blisteringly claims, “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable.”

Of course, as Hans von Spakovsky notes4, there actually was some logic in selecting the six countries named in the order: “Three of the countries — Iran, Syria, and Sudan — are listed by the State Department as official sponsors of terrorism, while the other three — Libya, Somalia, and Yemen — were listed as ‘countries of concern’ because of their terrorism problems by Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security secretary under Obama.”

Undoubtedly, had Watson or anyone else scoured the world to find predominantly Christian or Hindu countries that are official sponsors of terrorism, he would have come up empty handed. But facts aside (as they often are when it comes to judicial rulings), for now at least, the order is on hold.

Trump blasted the “terrible” ruling that was “done by a judge for political reasons.” In fact, he said, “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.”

Meanwhile, the First Amendment isn’t the only one getting attention when it comes to immigration. The Tenth is getting in on the action, too. On Monday, Tennessee became the first state to use the “reserved powers” clause to sue the federal government — not for keeping immigrants out but for forcing refugee resettlement within state borders.

The Tennessean reports5, “The lawsuit … alleges that the federal government has violated the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government possesses only the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution and that all other powers are reserved for the states.” It argues that the feds have “unduly forced states to pay for the refugee resettlement program” and “asks the court to force the federal government to stop resettling refugees in Tennessee until all costs associated with the settlement are incurred by the federal government.” The Tennessean reports that in fiscal year 2016, more than 2,000 refugees were resettled in the state.

Of course, Barack Obama, not Donald Trump, ordered the forced resettlement, though as of yet, Trump hasn’t vacated that order. Hence, although filed against the Trump administration, the lawsuit is targeting an Obama-era policy.

It remains to be seen how the court will rule, but if Tennessee wins, perhaps Hawaii will volunteer to take Tennessee’s allotment of refugees. After all, opposition to Trump’s executive order aside, of the nearly 85,000 refugees the U.S. admitted in fiscal year 2016, guess how many the Aloha State took in? Exactly zero6.

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Anti-Voter ID Study Debunked7

Last month the Leftmedia heralded a study8 from the universities of San Diego and Bucknell purporting to show that voter ID laws suppress the minority vote. The Washington Post helped the cause by injecting a racist angle, running a story titled, “New evidence that voter ID laws ‘skew democracy’ in favor of white Republicans.” The trouble is, the study turns out to be bunk. Professors from Stanford, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania released their review9 of the voter ID study and, well, you could say the professors gave it an “F.”

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner sums it up10: The original study’s authors “used the wrong data, they misinterpreted that data, they failed to take into account other pre-existing factors that explain differences between states with and without voter ID, and when tested, their model demonstrably assumes what it is trying to prove.”

The Left’s opposition to common sense voter ID laws has been a long-running effort to promote the false narrative that such laws are inherently racist and are a tool of Republicans designed to suppress the minority vote. On this flawed basis, leftists summarily dismiss legitimate concerns over the integrity of the vote as being merely Republican political pandering and the problem of voter fraud as practically nonexistent.

The review of the study flatly contradicts what its authors originally claimed. The reviewing professors found no varying voting numbers between those states with voter ID laws and those without. The review states, “In no specification do we find that primary or general turnout significantly declined between 2010 and 2014 in states that implemented a strict voter ID law in the interim.” And why would it? Various other ID laws11 abound across the nation and in every state, and those laws are not deemed racist or suppressive. They are understood to be common sense tools necessary for the proper functioning of a modern society. Certainly for any representative government to function with integrity, it must protect its citizens' vote.

What is clear is that the progenitors of the faulty study manipulated the data in order to support their political agenda. Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, states, “For a perfect example of the term ‘alternate facts’ look no further [than this faulty study]. For years, activists and academics have been searching for the silver bullet to prove voter ID is harmful to minorities, despite broad support for the laws across every demographic.” Too often what is passed off as “scientific fact” is more accurately categorized as unsubstantiated opinion.

The Dems' Tax Deception Problem12

Democrats like chiding Republicans on the tax issue, particularly when it comes to “the wealthy” who “don’t pay their fair share.” It’s a convenient talking point geared toward constituents because it conjures up feelings of anger, jealousy and resentment. And the Democrat Party has exploited it to the fullest extent possible in an effort to sway elections.

In August 2012, during the height of the pivotal election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid erroneously charged, “The word’s out that [Romney] hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years.” It was a blatant lie that even The Washington Post flatly condemned13. Even in the ensuing years Reid remained stubborn14, haughtily saying things like, “Romney didn’t win, did he?” and, “It’s one of the best things I’ve ever done.”

Then there’s Hillary Clinton. At a presidential debate last fall, she stated, “You’ve gotta ask yourself, why won’t [Trump] release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. … Maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes.” Of course, we now know that Trump’s 2005 tax rate of 25%15 dwarfed that of Obama and, yes, even Bernie Sanders. Especially Bernie Sanders, whose income was taxed at just 13% in 2014. And as for Clinton, at least half the reason for the Clinton Foundation’s existence was to provide a tax shelter for Bill and Hillary’s exorbitant speaking fee income.

Republicans are constantly bombarded with accusations of tax evasion and exploitation, but the fact is that the real tax deception is coming from the Left, whose continued gamesmanship with faux accusations is hurting them mightily at the ballot box.

Read Are Sanctuary Cities Safer?30. The “sanctuary city” movement is nothing more than a pandering political charade aimed at Hispanic voters — and sanctimonious fellow leftist elites.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here31.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

An Increasingly Dangerous North Korea32 — Trump can thank Obama, Clinton and Carter for the trouble. New Climate Study Vindicates EPA’s Pruitt33 — CO2 may not be as culpable as alarmists claim. Obama’s Meddling Ways?34 — Republicans call for investigation of whether he tried to influence foreign elections. Time to Say Goodbye to Michelle Obama’s School Lunches35 — Kids will eat if the food’s good.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Jeff Jacoby: Climate Models Fail So Often Because Climate Science Is So Incomplete36 Veronique de Rugy: 3 Actions for Combatting Government Favoritism37 Hans von Spakovsky: Preet Bharara ‘Fired’: A Phony Scandal Created by an Obama Appointee38

For more, visit Right Opinion39.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Jeff Jacoby: “Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½. Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists' frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism. The list of variables that shape climate is very long. … But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50. (Multiplying .95 by itself 15 times yields 46.3 percent.) Is it any surprise that climate-change predictions in the real world — where the complexities are exponentially greater and the exactitude of knowledge much less — have such a poor track record?”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “A good writer of history is a guy who is suspicious. Suspicion marks the real difference between the man who wants to write honest history and the one who’d rather write a good story.” —Jim Bishop (1907-1987)

About that “vast right-wing conspiracy”: “President Trump’s assertion that his phones at Trump Tower were tapped last year has been treated as hilarious — and in some circles as beyond contempt. But I can vouch for the fact that extracurricular surveillance does occur, regardless of whether it is officially approved. I was wiretapped in 2011 after taking a phone call in my congressional office from a foreign leader.” —former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich

A futile effort: “I think there’s a difference between not supporting an order on policy grounds and finding it unconstitutional. I do not think [Trump’s travel ban is] unconstitutional. I do think the Supreme Court will uphold it even if [Neil] Gorsuch is not yet on the Supreme Court.” —Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz

Alpha Jackass: “The senator from Kentucky [Rand Paul] is now working for Vladimir Putin.” —Sen. John McCain

Demo-gogues: “I think what’s going on now is a fundamental question in our government about whether or not the Justice Department, including our U.S. attorneys, are truly independent and committed to the rule of law or whether or not they are tame and more committed to Donald Trump and Donald Trump’s agenda.” —Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Late-night humor: “College students are out of town for spring break. This is the time of year students take a well-deserved break from partying and drinking at school to go party and drink on a beach or perhaps another town.” —Jimmy Kimmel

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et FidelisManaging Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.